JlMl

(ilass

Book . V^ It

SPEECH

M. THOS. ROSS, OF PENNSYIVANIA,

THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA.

DSLivcasv

IN THE BOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 10, 18S0.

WASHINGTON:

?amTKD A,T THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OPFICK,

1850.

s tjC^Clf AJ

ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA

1:1 Committee of tlie Whole on the state of the
Union, on the President's Message communica-
ting the Constitution of California.

Mr. ROSS said-
Mr. Chairmax: It was my intention to take no
{•.art in this discussion; but as I do not concur with
eny one of my colleagues who have addressed the
committee, in the views which they have expressed,
I deem it proper also to offer some remarks upon
the subject now under consideration. Beside, I
feel that it is a duty which I owe my constituents,
to explain to them the position that I occupy on
this exciting and most momentous question. I do
r.ot intend, sir, to submit any elaborate argument
on the constitutional point, which has already
been the subject of so much discussion; but, as I
have no wish to conceal from my constituents any
opinion I entertain, it is but just to them to say,
that I have given that question an anxious and
deliberate consideration, and that, in my opinion.
Congress has no constitutional power either to
establish or to prohii)it slavery in the States or ter-
ritories. And I will further say, that even if Con-
gress had the constitutional power, it would be un-
wise, inexpedient, and highly improper to exercise
that power.

In justice to myself I will, in a few words, give
ny reasons for this opniion. Each State was an
independent sovereignty w.hen she entered the Con-
federacy, so far, at least, as regarded the objects
cf property, and the domestic and social irstitu-
tions of her people; and she surrendered no part
of that sovereignty by becoming a member of the
Union. TheGenera! (Government was established
for certain specified olyects, and its powers are
limited by the constitutional grant which created
it; but to the States themselves belong all powers
not expressly delegated, or which, by necessary!
implication, do not arise from some express grant, |
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution,
negro slavery, I believe, existed in all the States
but one, which then formed the Union; and no
power was given to the General Government to con-
trol, regulate, prohibit, or establish slavery. That
power, not being granted, v.-as vested in the States
themselves. The Constitution, however, recog-
nised slavery as one of the institutions of the
country, and made provision for the protection of
slave property. There was no grant, therefore, of
power of any kind on the subject of slavery made
by the States to the General Government; but there
was a binding obligation entered into by the free

States, or by such as might becoriie free, that the
GeneralGovernment should protect slave property.
It seems to me, therefore, that as the States dele-
gated to the General Government no power of any
kind over the question of slavery, Congress, which
derives all its powers from the Constitution, pos-
sesses no authority either to establish or prohibit
slavery in the States or territories. In regard to
! the territories, Mr. Chairman, the General Govern-
I ment is but the trustee of the States; and it has no
I power to make any rule or regulation which will
( throw open the territories to settlement by the peo-
j pie of one section of the Union to the exclusion of
j the people of another section. The beneficiary
i interest of the territories is in the people of all
j the States — slave States as well as free; and the
General Government, as the trustee, is bound
to execute the trust for the common benefit of all.
j Any legislation by Congress, prohibiting slavery
I in the territories, would, therefore, be not only an
I assumption of power not delegated, but would be
I a violation of the trust, which the Constitution
I vested in the General Government.

But, sir, I further hold that, the General Govern-
ment has no power to prohibit, by any legislative
I act, the introduction into the territories of any
species of property which the Constitution of the
United States has recognized as property. Prep-
j erty in slaves is not only recognized by the Con-
: stitution, but guarantees are given for its protec-
tion. The power, therefore, which is given to
j Congress by the third section of the fourth article,
j to make "all needful rules and regulations respect-
ing the territory or otlier property belonging to the
United States," is merely a right to regulate, but
not a power to abolish that v/hich the Constitu-
tion has recognized as property. An obligation
to protect or regulate, gives no power to prohibit
or to destroy. And thus, while we have the con-
stitutional power to pass laws for the protection
and regulation of slave property in the territories,
we have no power to make any legislative enact-
ment for its prohibition, whether in the States or
territories. In a word, sir, the Constitution of
the United States is the Constitution of the terri-
tories, and as that Constitution recognizes the right
of property in slaves, any prohibition by Congre.ss
of that right would'be in violation of the Consti-
tution, which is the supreme law of the land.

But, sir, this system of slavery involves not
merely a question of property. It is a domestic
institution, interwoven with the social system of
one half of^ the States of this Confederacy. I have.

just expressed the opinion that, viewed as a ques-
tion of property alone, legislation by Congress in
regard ton is unconstitutional; but when viewed
in its true light, as a domestic institution, lying at
the foundation of the social system of six or seven
millions of the people of this country, I cannot
hesitate in pronouncing all lejjislation by Congress
for its prohil)ition a usurpation of power never
delegated, and a clear violation of the spirit and
meaning of the Constitution. Sir, tiie Constitu-
tion was not formed for the purpose of controlling,
or interfering with the domestic or social institu-
tions of the people of any of the States. No such
power is conferred by the States on the General
Government in any part of that instrument. This
Union never would have been formed, if such a
power had been attempted to be delegated to the
General Government. No class of people in any
part of the Union would have been willing to sub-
ject their domestic institutions to the control of a
mere sectional majority, which might, in the lapse
of time, prevail in this House. 1 think, sir, it is
an undeniable proposition, that whatever social
system or domestic relation, not forbidden l)y the
Constitution, the people of this country see proper
to adopt, the people of the territories may also
adopt or reject, as may eeem to them the more ex-
pedient. Pennsylvania, and each one of the fifteen
free States of this Union, may reorganize their
social institutions at any time, and introduce this
system of domestic servitude. There is nothing
in the Constitution of the United States to prohibit
it. I know that this will never be done, for no
free State will inflict so great an evil u[)on her
people as to introduce negro slavery; but they have
the constitutional power, if they see proper to ex-
ercise it. If, then, all the thirty Slates of this
Confederacy may adopt this system of negro servi-
tude without any violation of the Constitution, I
am at a loss to understand in what part of that in-
strument Congress finds its power of prohibition
in the territories. The power to make rules and
regulations respecting the properly of thf^ United
States in the territories, conftrs no authority to
prohibit or abolish any social or domestic relation
ef the people not in violation of the Constitution.
If it be unconstitutional in Congress to prohibit
this domestic institution in the Slates, it is equally
unconstitutional to prohibit it in the irrriiories.
Congress htis no delegated f)ower in either case,
under the Constitution; and 1 can see no difference
in principle between the States and territnrie.s as
to the power of Congress over the domestic insti-
tutions of the people.

i know, sir, that iliere are legislative precedents
for the exercise of this power by Congress; but
precedents, not founded on any consiitutioiuil
authority, can and ought to have no binding force,
either here or in courts of law. They have al-
ways been, in every Government, and in every
age, the [dea of tyrants for usurpation of power,
and for encroachments on the rights of ihc people.
It has Ijfcn truly said, that a precedent cm never
sanctify error, or perpetuate usurpation. In a
constitutional Government, such as ours, where the
powers of the General Government are clearly
defined, no act or repeated acts of Congress, can
cither enlarge or restrict those powers. There is,
indeed, no doctrine more fraught with evil, than
the one which would place the exposition of con-
Blitutional power in the hands of Congrrss. it la

a doctrine, sir, which tramples under foot all con-
stitutional guarantees, and makes the unrestrained
will of a majority of this House the supreme law
of the land. The history of the legislation of this
country filrnishes precedents in abundance, of the
most dangerous heresies, which could be intro-
duced into the Government. We have precedents
for alien and sedition laws, for national banks, for
internal improvements by the General Govern-
ment, and for many other heresies, which the ad-
vocates of a latitudinarian construction endeav-
ored to ingraft upon our Constitution. Power is
always stealing from the many to the few; and in
a Government with limited powers, no better plan
could be adopted for enlarging those powers, than
by making legislative precedents the rule for deter-
mining the extent of constitutional authority. It
is the duty of us all — but it is emphatically the
duty of the Democratic party — to repudiate all
legislative precedents for the exercise of pow'er not
granted to Congress by the Constitution.

Entertaining these views, the oath, which I have
taken to support the Constitution, imposes upon
me the duty to vote against all attempts tliat may-
be made to legislate slavery either in or out of our
territories, or north or south of any degree of
latitude, which may be proposed. Under no cir-
cumstances, sir, can I give my vote in favor of the
Missouri compromise line, which would be virtu-
ally legislating slavery into all territory south of
that line. I stand upon the broad constitutional
platform of noninterference; the only platform
on which the rights, security, and indepeiidenceof
the States can be maintained.

But, iWr. Chairman, I will leave this constitu-
tional point, and ask the attention of the committee
to other matters connected with the question under
consideration. It can no longer, sir, be disguised,
that this slavery agitation has now assumed a
fearful a.^pect. The danger, with which we are
threatened, is not of recent origin; it has been
gradually and steadily approaching for years past,
though it has been greatly accelerated by recent poli-
tical events. The two antagonist elements, which
were combined in our Constitution, have been war-
ing against each othereversince its formation. The
time has now come when the danger must be met
face to face; and upon tliis body is devolved the
high and solemn responsibility of meeting it. It
must not be met by palliatives, by expedients,
or by any system of political quackery, knovin by
the name of compromises. No, sir; the day for
shifts or exp<dieiits of any kind has passed. We
tried the Mj.^souri contftromise in 1820, and with
what success let the history of the country from
that tiine to tlie present answer. Sir, since 1820,
tlie slavery agitation has progressed with alarming
strides. The Missouri compromise opened the
door for its agitation. It certainly did not tend to
s'lppress it, and it could have ha<l no such effect;
fur whenever a clear con.^titutional right is sur-
rendered by a compromise, still further suriender
will inevital>ly be sooner or later demanded. Such
has been the effect of the Mi.ssouri compromise,
and such will be the effect of all eompromi,^.e8 of
constitutional power. I am opposed, ssir, to all
compromises of this qiustion. 1 am in favor of
meeting it on broad constitutional ground.*', with
the solemn declaration of this Hdusc, (hat Con-
gress has not the cfiisiitutiona! power to legislate
in regard to it. If such a resolution could bo

5

adopted, it would strike at the root of the evil at j Why, then, was it, that, with a clear Democratic
once; and it would relieve the country from the \ majority in this House, his election did not lake
agitation of a question which is already surrounded \ place on the first vote ? And why v/as it, that the
with so much danger to the peace and stability of ; voting was prolonged for twenty days before we
•he Union. No one can be insensible of this || succeeded in the election? Simply because our
innger. For my own part, I believe that the peril jj candidate came from a southern State; and north-
i3 more imminent than it has been at any former \\ ern Democrats, who boasted of their Democracy,
period of our history. Dissolution may not occur j: refused to support him— for that reason, and that
this year, or the next; but it docs not require the |l alone. This fact is significant enough of the prog-

gift of prophecy to foretell that it will come sooner
or later, if these aggressions upon the domestic
institutions of the South are persevered in. It is
a lamentable fact, that the people of the North and
of the South, unmindful that they are children of'

ress, which sectional feeling had made in northern
constituencies, even before the meeting of Congress.
It was the first time in the history of the Demo-
cratic party, that a northern Democrat refused to
support a southern Democrat because one lived

the same revolutionary parent, begin already to j north, and the other south, of Mason and I

; and it is an [. on 'a line; and I hope it will be the last. Sir,

of Mason and DiX'
look upon each other as enemies; and it is an li on 'a line; and I hope it will be the last. Sir, we
equally c'eplorable fact, that those holy feelings of j would have wholly failed in the election of a
love and veneration, which the people of both ij Speaker on Democratic grounds, if the Whigs had
sections of our common country, but a few years Ij not, in the simplicity of their hearts, rescmded the
ago, entertained for this blessed Union, are grad- |i rule requiring a majority of the votes to elect, and
ually dying out, and in a short time will be wholly ; in its stead substituted the plurality rule; and that
extinguished. Sir, here lies the danger. I know : result would have been produced because northern
thai the North is full of strength and of vigor, and j| Democrats would'not vote for southern Democrats,
may compel her weaker brother of the South to ji But was there no sectional feeling manifested by
'submission. But the first blow that is struck— ii the South, when the election of Clerk of the House
the first blood that is shed will seal the doom of ij took place? The one, the Democratic candidate,
that peaccf:;il and glorious Union which our fathers ij resided in the North, and the other, the Whig can-
bequeathed to us. Sir, this Union is not. an iron- jj didate, resided in the South. Did the southern
bound Union, which Uie hand of power and of {^ Democrats adhere to the Democratic candidate?
violence may maintain. No, sir, the tie which jj No, sir, they even did worse than the northern
unites us is a silken tie— it is the tie of mutual j' Democrats, who refused to vote for a southern
love and mutual sympathies— of common memo- jJ Democratic Speaker. They not only abandoned
ries of a glorious past, and of common hopes of a ii the Democratic candidate, but they abandoned the
still more glorious future. When this tie is broken, ii Democratic party, joined the Whigs, and by their
the Americ.in Union will exist no longer. The j votes elected the Whig southern Clerk in opposi-
written bond of the Confederacy may remain, but ;■ tion to the Democratic northern clerk. Colonel
its vitality will be gone. We will have the crushed i' Forney, our candidate, was the favorite of the De-
and battered, body, but the soul— everything in- jj mocracy of the North; he had always been the
deed, which gave life and spirit and value to that ij eloquent champion of Democratic principle.^, and
body, will have fled forever. '] he had courageously stood by the Constitution in

Let no one be deceived in regard to this danger, i defence of southern rights against northern aggres-
We are even now passing through the first process jj sion. But still this sectional feeling overpowered
of a dissolution of the Union. This House has 'j all other considerations, and he was struck down
been already told, that the religious union of two !, by the South for the sake of the South, [advert,
of the most numerous denominations of Christians ii Mr. Chairman, to these elections with no unkind
has been dissolved by thir; slavery agitation. The j| feelings. My object isto show to what extent
northern member of thase denominations will no
longer v/orship his God at t!ie same altar with his

southern brother; and we have been also told, that
the same spirit of disunion has entered the sanc-
tuary of other churches in the North. Sir, not
only is our religious union being dissolved, but the
iiolilical union, which, for more than fifty years.

this sectional feeling, which is but the forerunner
of disunion, has been carried even here in the le-
gislative hall of the nation. But, this feeling has
not merely manifested itsdf in these elections.
Who, sir, that loves his country, ran forget the
terrible scene, which was exhibited in this Ohraii-
ber, on the 13th of December last, in which the

united the Democrats of the North and of the South j; honorable member from Georgia [Mr. Toombs]

from his political brotherof the South, in the same i; always will stand by it, come what may; and if a

manner that sectional fanatici.=;m has estranged the
Christian of the North from his Christian brother
of the South. Sir, the proceedings of this Con-
gress, since the first day on which we assembled,
prove clearly that an evil spirit is at work, which
will ullim.ately bring, not only upon our party, but
our country, ruin and disunion. Why, 1 ask, were

thunderbolt had fallen at my feet, I could not have
been more shocked than I was at what I then saw
and heard. The honorable member did not hesi-
tate " to avow before this House and the country,
' and in the presence of the living God, that if by
' your legislation you seek to drive us from the Ter-
ritories'of California and New Mexico, purchased

we four weeks endeavoring to elect a Speaker of ji ' by the common blood and trea..ure of the whole

ihis House? Our candidate was a Democrat, reg
iilarly nominated by a Democratic caucus, unob-
jectionable to any member of the party on politi-
cal grounds, and as to his personal fitness for the
office, his political opponents even conceded it.

' people, and to abolish slavery in this District,
' thereby attempting to fix a national degradation
' upon half of the States of this Confederacy, I am
'for disunion; and if my physical courage be equal
' to the maintenance of my convictions of right and

6

' duty, I will devote ail I am and all I have on earth
' to its consummation."

Sir, how was this language received ? With
cries of treason I treason ! No, sir; no cry of
treason was uttered, but shouts of applause echoed
through the Hall. Those plaudits, on that mem-
orable occasion, came not from the galleries, but
from honorable, distinguished, and prominent
members of both the political parties of the country.
The sentiment uttered was not the sentiment of
the honorable member alone. The response which
it received from southern representatives, showed
that it was the sentiment of the South; and no
sooner had the sound of his voice reached the
Bouthern States, than it was echoed back with
legislative approval. I know that the Free-Soil
men. and the people generally of the North, have
viewed this as the language of a zealous and im-
passioned man; but in this they are mistaken. If
the proviso become a law, they will find that the
sentiment uttered by the gentleman from Georgia
will be the all-pervading sentiment of the South.
It has been repeated again and again on this floor,
by other southern representatives; and to this
hour, no member from any section of the South,
whether Whig or Democrat, with one solitary
exception, [Mr. Stanly,] has disavowed that sen-
timent. Grave Senators and representatives, who
have always been distinguished for their prudence
and moderation, and for their sincere attachment
to the Union, have also solemnly warned us, that if
the proviso become a law, the Union will be at an
end. Sir, is it not time for the people of the North
to take heed of these warnings? Is it not time
that they, too, begin to calculate the value of the
Union — not in that pecuniary spirit, which esti-
mates its value in dollars and cents, but in that
spirit of patriotism, which, looking far beyond its
commercial value, estimates it by the many and
great blessings it has already conferred upon man-
kind, and by the countless blessings it is still des-
tined to confer upon generations yet unborn. Is it
not time for them to pause and inquire, how long
they can teach from their pulpits, and their school-
houses, that the institutions of the people of one
half of this Confederacy are sinful and wicked,
and at the same time the union of these States con-
tinue.

But, sir, for what object is the Union thus placed
in jeopardy .' Is it for the purpose of still furtiier
enlarging the liberty of the citizen and obtaining
new guarantees for his rigiits? Is it for the pur-
pose of effecting, by constitutional means, some
great constitutional reform ? Is it for the purpose
of effecting any object demanded by any great
public exigency whatever ? No, sir; but it is for
the miserable object of doing that by human laws
which nature, and a higher Power than any earthly
tribunal, has already done. So far as regards the
Territories of New Mexico and Utah, nature her-
self has interposed barriers against the introduc-
tion of slavery, far more formiduble and prohibi-
tory, than any legislative enactment by Congress
could possibly be. The whole of the country
embraced in these territories is a high mountain re-
gion, with no adaptation in soil, climate, or pro-
duction for slave labor. The adoption of the Wil-
mot proviso for these territories would have about
as much practical effect in preventing the extension
of slavery therein, as it had in the Oregon Terri-
tory, or as it would have in Canada, whenever the

people of that northern clime ask to be annexed
to the United States. It was stated, in a speech
delivered a few days ago by a distinguished Sen-
ator, [Mr. Dorr.i.As,] on the authority of Fre-
mont's explorations, that the lowest point in the
lowest valley of the Great Basin, as marked on
the map of those explorations, is more than four
thousand feet above the ocean, and that the aver-
age elevation of the valleys is at least five thou-
sand feet. Why, sir, what better anti-slavery
proviso can the most ultra free soiler desire, than
the one which nature herself has enacted? " When
' you ascend toward the heavens, twice as high a3
' the Alleghany mountains, in order to get into
' valleys surrounded by mountain ranges many
' thousand feet higher, and covered with eternal
' snows, do you not think (asks the distinguished
' Senator) that you have found a charming coun-
' try and a lovely climate for the negro, and es-
' pecially for the profitable employment of slave
' labor?" Sir, it is time that the honest-minded
portion of the community, who are sincerely op-
posed to the extension of slavery, should look at
this question in its true aspect. If they do. 1 feel
certain, that they will no longer sufl!'er themselves
to be used for the purpose of promoting the selfish
and political objects of a few designing and ambi-
tious men. Fanaticism itself, it seems to me, must
be convinced that slavery could not even be driven^
by lejislation, into the Teiritories of New Mexico
and Utah.

Sir, I do not believe that slavery would, under
any circumstances, have been introduced into any
of the territories acquired from Mexico. The
valleys of the Sacramento and San Joaquin, in Cali-
fornia, were the only places to which, by a mere
possibility, it might have been extended. But the
Giver of all good, in whose hands are the desti-
nies of nations, has, in his infinite wisdom, so
controlled human events that every part of Cali-
fornia is now, and will forever remain, fr?e soil.
The discovery of the gold, and the consequent
rush of emigration from the free States, has for-
ever closed her doors against the admission or*
slavery. Yes, sir, California is already free by
the unanimous consent of her own people, and
that, too, without the aid or interference of the
Free-Soil party of the country. Her soil will be
free soil whether she be admitted as a State or be
remanded to a territorial condition. No legisla-
tive action by Congress can change her destiny.
Fiee she has become by her own act, and free she
will remain; and I rejoice that she owes not her
freedom to the Free-Soil party in this House. I
know that southern gentlemen deny that the con-
stitution of California was the voluntary act of her
people, and that they allege it was the act of the
administration of President Taylor. Sir, I con-
cede that there was a highly improper and un-
warrantable interference by the Administration i.i
regard to California; and that, perhaps, without
that interference, this State government would not
have been formed. But it i's nevertheless the vol-
untary act of her people, although the suggestion
to do that act first came from the Administration.
If it be not the voluntary act of the people, why
is it that no remonstrance has been sent up to this
House ? Why is it that no complaint of any kind
has been made by any one? Because there is no
dissatisfaction among her citizens in regard to that
act. But I have other objections to the adniission

of California as a State. It occurs to me, that if
it were not for the influence, which this slavery
question exercises over the minds of us all, not
twenty gentlemen could be found in this House
who would vote for her admission. The territory
embraced by the proposed State of California
contains nearly four times the number of square
miles, which either New York or Pennsylvania
possesses. Pennsylvania has a territory embra-
cing nearly forty-seven thousand square miles,
and New York has about the same number. But
California is seelcing admission with a territory
which may be estimated to contain about one
hundred and seventy thousand square miles; and
she has a sea coast of nine hundred miles, or
thereabouts. In addition to all this, she in-
cludes within her limits every harbor which we
have on the Pacific. Why, sir, admit her with
iier present extended boundaries, and she will be
an empire ! No one, who looks forward to the
future, when a dense population will fill her bor-
ders, can doubt v/hat will be her destiny. With
her varied and rich mineral productions, her
splendid and unrivalled commercial position, with
the trade of the eastern and western world falling
into her lap, her population will increase with an
acceleration unprecedented even in this country.
That destiny will then be separation from the
Union, and the formation, out of our territories
west of the Rocky Mountains, of a separate west-
ern confederac)'. I am aware that it has been
said, that a great part of her soil is barren, and
will be unproductive, and that therefore she will
be incapable of sustaining a large population.
But whatever may be the fact in regard to her
soil, it is manifest that, with her immense valuable
mineral productions, she will sustain a population
much larger than a merely agricultural territory
could possibly do. Sir, we all know the pre-
ponderating influence of large States. In 1844,
the Whig party felt sensibly the weight of the
empire State of New York, whose thirty-six elec-
toral votes crushed their hopes and destroyed their
candidate. And in 1848, the Democratic party,
with a candidate distinguished for his patriotism
and sound American feeling, for his abilities and
long-tried services in the councils of the nation,
and for his pure and constitutional Democracy — I
say, that with such a standard-bearer the Demo-
cratic party was for the time struck down by the
twenty-six electoral votes of Pennsylvania, which
she cast for the no-party President. The three
States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio,
poll nearly two-thirds of the electoral votes neces-
sary to elect a President; and if we add Virginia,
we find four States of the Union wanting but two
of three-fourths of the vote requisite to elect a
candidate. Does not this simple statement strong-
ly exhibit the dangerous power which belongs to
large States ? We have thirty States in the Union,
and of these four alone can, from their extent of
territory, poll three-fourths of the vote necessary
to a choice. By a combination with each other,
their power, in every Presidential election, would
be irresistible. The preponderating influence of
large States is felt not only in our Presidential
elections, but in the councils of the nation, and in
everything, that appertains to the Government of
the country. Sir, I think it is unwise to extend
this power by admitting California with a terri-
tory nearly four times as large as any one of the

four States I have named. The smaller vre make
the States on the Pacific, the greater will be our
security against secession. If I were influenced
by the slavery question, in my objection to the
admission of California, I would take the ground
that by dividing her territory we would have two
free States instead of one, and four Senators in
Congress instead of two, and thus strengthen the
power of the free States in the legislative depart-
ment of the Government.

But there are other objections to the admission
of California, beside the extent of her territory.
Has she served the probationary period, which
has heretofore been required of all our territories.'
Has her population in one year become sufiiciently
indoctrinated in republican principles to entitle
them to the inestimable rights, privileges, and im-
munities enjoyed by a State government? I am
afraid not, sir. A large portion of her population
consist of foreigners, who have never had a repub-
lican training. It is well known, that on the dis-
covery of the gold, persons from every part of the
world flocked to California, and that the Pacific
coast and islands sent forth their thousands. To
say, sir, that such apopulation, composed of every
hue, and brought together from every clime, were
fit persons, in whom to vest that high attribute of
freemen, the elective franchise, is what I cannot
understand, and do not believe. The high privilege
of becoming one of the sovereignties of this great
Confederacy has never been so lightly granted.
Michigan was erected into a territory, January 11,
1805; but she was not admitted as a State until
January 26, 1837 — more than thirty-two years after
her territorial government had been established,
notwithstanding she had three times memorialized
Congress for admission; and, sir, when she was
finally admitted, she was allowed but one repre-
sentative in Congress. And how was it in re-
spect to Florida ? A territorial government was
established in March, 1822, but she was not ad-
mitted as a State until March, 1845, twenty-three
years after she had been created a territory, al-
though she had knocked four times at your doors
for admission. Even then, she was allowed but
one representative in Congress. I might run
through the list of all our territories, and show,
that in every instance, they served a probationary
term before they were admitted as States; but my
time will not permit me to do so. Why, sir, should
this salutary rule be broken down in favor of Cali-
fornia.' In my opinion, a rigid enforcement of it
is more necessary, in regard to California, than it
was in other cases.

But, Mr. Chairman, what was the population
of California when this constitution was formed,
and what is it now ? When I speak of population,
I do not mean gold-seekers and other adventurers,
who have gone there for a temporary object; but
what is the number of her resident population .'
No one can tell. But one fact we do know, and
that is, that the whole number of votes polled was
only about twelve thousand eight hundred, and
that, too, without any regard to residence or any
other qualification of the voter. No single district
in Pennsylvania, or in any other State, that polls
only twelve thousand eight hundred votes, is enti-
tled to even one representative in Congress. My
own district polls more than sixteen thousand
votes. But California is to be admitted as a State,
with two Senators and two Representatives, when

8

her entire vote oo!le4 was but twelve thousand
eioht hundred. Tlie admission of California, under
ail these circumstances, will not only be a vioietion
of every rule, by whicli we have been heretofore
governed, in the titlmission of States, but will be
an act of (ijieat injustice to the oMier Slates, who
have for so many years borne all the burdens and
the perils of the Government in its most trying
period. It will be a precedent for ihe admission, at
the next session, of New Mexico, Minnesota, and
Utah; and will thus break down that principle of
fair and equal representation, which is the corner-
stone of our republican system of Government.
Much, sir, as I arn opposed to her admission, I
wil' nevertheless be compelled, by the wisiiesof my
constituents, whose will I dare not disregard, to
rote for the bill now before the committee, unless
their opinions should undergo a change before the
.Inal vote be taken. I have no right, as a repre-
sentative, to set up my own judgment against the
opinions of my constituents.

U lias been my object to show, that California,
New Mexico, and Utah, are destined to be free
soil, without any legislative action by Congress.
Why, then, sir, should the Union be shaken to its
centre by ilie agitation of this slavery question .'
Why, air, should these persevering and systematic
efforts be made to estrange one section of the Union
from the other, and to alienate those who ought
to be bound together by fraternal aft'cction ? The
answer is plain: One class of these agitators desire
to break down the national Democratic party, by
the formation of a new party, founded on geo-
graphical divi.siona, and thus rise to power and to
plane; and the other class, composed exclusively
of Abolitionists and fanatics, are determined to
abolish slavery within the States, at whatever
aacritice, it may be accomplished. The immortal
Washington warned us " to distrust the patriot-
ism of those who, in any quarter, might endeavor
to weaken the bands of the Union." With him
the continuance of tite Union, was a primary ob-
ject of patriotic desire, and he charged us " to
'cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable at-
' tachment to it, and indignantly to frown upon the
'first dawning of every attempt to alitnate any
' portion of our country from the rest, or to en-
' lee')le the sacred ties which now link together
' the various parts." The Father of our country
foresaw at that early day, the dangers to which the
Union might be exposed, and he warned us, in the
most solemn and emphatic manner, to frown upon
the very first dawning of any attempt to alienate
one Roction from the other. And how have we
attended to hia it:j unction .' Scarcely rnorc than
fifty years have passed away since this solemn
charge was given to us, and already sectional jeal-
ousies and geographical discrimination a are bringing
forth their bitter fruits. Thefiml d.-nvning of aliena-
tion has long since disappeared, and the lurid glare
of di.sunion now sheds its sickening and dism-al
light around us. Sir, if my colleague, [Mr.
Stevems,] when he addressed the committee, had
raised his eyes to the j)ortrait of Washington,
v/hich hung before him, he would tiave seen it
indignantly frov^ning at his ignoble attempt to
excite one section of the Union against the other;
or, if the heart of that member had throbbed with
«ven one patriotic impulse, he would have shrunk
back to his seat covered with shame and remorse,
for hia libel upon the government of his country.

Sir, I envy not the feelings of any one, who can

rise in his place, and in a deliberately preptared
speech, pronounce the Government of his country,
a despotism. I envy not the man, who can thus
defame the memories of Washington, and Frank-
lin, and Madison, and of the other sages and
patriots of the Revolution, by whom this Constitu-
lion was fornred. No, sir, I envy no such man;
and I would leave him alone in hia shame, if a
sense of dety did not require me to notice some
other passages of that most extraordinary speech.
In referring to the course of the South, that mem-
ber has dared to speak of his Democratic colleagues
in the following indecent and insulting language:

" You liave more tlimi once frightened the tame North
fiom its propriety, and (bund "dniightHces" enongii to be
your tool:!. And when youlacked a !;iven nunibi-r, I take
no pride in s;iyine, yon were. sure to find lliem in old Penn-
sylvania, wtio, in fornjer years, has r.tnked a portion of tier
delrgation among your most submissive shivf s. Buti hope,
with some fears, that the race of doughfaces is fxlinct. I
do not see how it could well be otherwise. Tlify were an
unmanly, an unvirile race, incapable, according to the laws
of nature, of reproduction. 1 hope tliey have left no de-
scendants. % The old oijps are deep in political graves. For
them, [ arn sure there u no resurrecuon, for they wen
soulless."

Dut ho even v/ent still further, and denounced
every northern nnan, who did not vote for the sla-
very restriction, " as a traitor to liberty and recreant
to his God." Sir, I may well ask wh.ether this is
the representative hall of the nation ? whether
we are the free Representatives of a free people,
or the " submissive slaves" which my colleage has
charged that we are? for surely language so offen-
sive, and impudence so unblushing, have never be-
fore been seen or heard, in any respectable assem-
blage of men. I know, sir, that it should be
treated with the acorn and contempt which every
honorable mind must feel for its author. It is an
old proverb, and as true as it is old, that the bad
tongue of a bad man can defame no one. Penn-
sylvania knows that member. With deep liumilia-
tion she acknowledges the acquaintance. His
history has been th.e history of her wrongs and
her misfortunes. But, sir, the memories of the
past have long since placed an imp.assable gulf
between him and her. She has affixed a brand
upon him, as deep and as indelible as the wrongs
which she suff^ed at his hands were grievous
and intolerable. Yes, sir, his dayof mischief there
has passed, and the Democracy of Pennsylvania
may v.-ell laugh to scorn his viilg>ir, indecent, and
unmanly abuse, not only of her own Representa-
tives, but of her southern brethren also. In a
mind constituted as is that memlier's, no doubt
some apology may be found for this extraordinary
speech. If, sir, I had ever been an applicant for a
high ofSce under the General Government, and
had been defeated by the South, in consequence of
my abolition tendencies, perhaps, I, too, might
speak of the South with equal bitterness. If, sir, I
were so degraded in feeling as to desire to raise
the negro to social and political equality with the
white man, perhaps, 1, too, might denounce the
slaveholder as recreant to hia God. If, sir, I were
so insensible of the dignity of my position, and so
lost to all sense of propriety as to be res;ardles3 of
what was due to my colleagues, and to this House,
perhaps I, too, might stigmatise as doughfaces
every one, who did not think as I thought, and
vote as I voted. Or if, sir, I had been, on any oc-
casion, a traitor to liberty, and had, by force of

9

arms, endeavored to treat an election, as if it had
never taken place, perhaps I, too, might denounce
as traitors every northern Representative who
stood by the Constitution of his country. But, j
Bir, therr )' one thing I could not do: I could not
rise in my jilac'^, and utter these aenliments, just '
after I had voted for a slaveholder for President,
in preference to a candidate who was born, edu-
cated, and lived on free soil; and in preference to
another candidate, who was the embodiment of
the principles which I professed. Nor, sir, could
I rise in my place and so defame the character of
good old Democratic Pennsylvania, as to represent
that she participated in any such sentiments, if
I did, it would bring a deeper blush into my
cheek than the address of the gentleman from
Virginia [iMr. Meade] brought into the cheek of
the honorable member from Penn.^ylvania; and he,
sir, has never been very remarkable for blushing.
No, sir, Pennsylvania entertains no such senti-
ments or feelings. Her voice is coming up daily to
this House, in tones of condemnation of the course
pursued by ray colleague, and the Free-Soil and
Abolition party of the North. No son of hers, who
had been born upon her soil, and had breathed in
early life her pure mountain air, would have given
utterance to such sentiments. Sir, the Democratic
party of Pennsylvania has aUvays stood by the
Union in its hour of peril, as well as in its day of
prosperity. That party has never recognized any
geographical discriminations in favor of one section
of the Union against the other; and I am proud to
eay, that now, when danger again threatens, that
party and that State are the first to come forward
to the rescue. Yes, sir, and I feel still more proud,
that the stout-hearted Democracy of rny own gal-
lant Lehigh was foremost to rally in defence of
the Union, against these incendiary attempts to
trample upon the Constitution. But, I will pass to
a subject of more importance than the member
from Pennsylvania.

We have heard a great deal said about the ag-
gressions of the two sections of t'le Union on the
rights of each other. I propose, sir, to consider
the question, by which section those aggressions
have been made — by the North or by the South.
The history of the country, from the adoption of
the Constitution, shows that the people of the
North have been tiic aggressors. 1 knoviT that it
has been the constant theme of the Federal party
and of Federal editors, for some j'cars past, to im-

Eress upon the people of the North, that the South
as been aggressing upon their rights; and the
question has been tauntingly put to us, svhelher we
will longer submit to southern dictation and south-
ern rule. Sir, this feeling was first deliberately
inculcated when the Democratic party of the Soutli
began to warn the country of the errors and the
evils of a protective tariff. The Federal party had
always inculcated it, for the plain reason, that the
South was the strong-hold of the Democracy: and
it was only by arou.'-ing sectional jealousy and ar-
raying the North against the South, that the Fed-
eralists could expect to break down the Democratic
parly of tlie Union, and thus secure to themselves
the control of the Government. Divide ard con-
quer was their principle of action. But the De-
mocracy of the North fetood firm, and resisted all
their attempts to separate them fiorn their political
brethren of the South. It was not until the pro-
tective system, with all its abominraiona, was about

to be swept away, that any portion of the Demo-
cratic party of the North sympathized with the
Federalists in their sectional hostility. It was ihen,
before the eyes of the Democrats were fully opened
to the enormities of this protective system, that
th.e cry of southern dictation was raised with re-
doubled energy by the Federalists; and then, for
the first time, it found favor with a portion of the
northern Democrats. They joined the Federalists
in their cry against the South, in order to preserve
that system of laws, which protected the manufac-
turing interest at the expense of every other inter-
est of the country. Sir, from that day to this, the
Federalists, Abolitionists, and the great body of the
manufacturers of the North, have rung the changes
so often upon southern aggresaioii, that unreflect-
ing men have begun to befieve there was something
in it. But when has the South ever aggressed upon
the North? — or when, by any legislative enact-
ment, has she ever infringed upon their rightg,
privileges, or social institutions? No such attempt
by theSou;n hasever been made. 'I'he history of
our legivslalioi shows, that the South lias always
voted appropriations for the North with a liberal
hand. Look at the harbors and sea-coast of the
North, and you will there see evidences enough to
attest the liberality of the South, and to prove, that
she has never entertained any unkind feelings for
that section of the Union. Millions upon miliiona
.■<he has voted to build up our Atlantic cities, and
to increase the wealtii and power of the northern
States, and still she is charged with aggression!
Sir, as a northern man, I pronounce the charge
unjust and ungenerous. Ifgentlemen, who make
this charge mean, that the South ha.=) given a strict
construction to the Constitution, and thus re-
strained the North in their bold attempts so to con-
strue it, as would have destroyed the sovereignty
of the Slates, and led to a consolidation of power
in the General Government, then 1 admit the fact.
But this was not aggression — it was constitutional
protection against the unconstitutional assumption
of the North.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let us look at the other
side of the picture. Let us see -.vhether the North —
I mean the Federal party of the North — has not
been constantly aggres.si,ig upon the South. In
1789 the Constitution v/ent into operation. " It
» was the result (said Genera! Washington, in hia
!| = letter to the President of the Congress of 1787)
'of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference
• and concession, which the peculiarity of our po-
' litical situation rendered indispensible." By that
instrument, the free States agreed to form a union
with the slave Stales. The Constitution expressly
recognized slavery, and stipulated for the protec-
tion of slave property. Nay more, it legalized
the slave trade, and covenanted, that no amend-
ment of the Constitution that might be made prior
to 1808 should prohibit the importation of slaves.
It thus not only legalized slavery and protected
slave property, but it looked forward to au in-
creased foreign importation of slaves. Whether
or not the free Stales, or those that were about to
become free, acted wisely in entering into such a
compact, it is not for us, who are sworn to support
the Constitution as we find it, to determi. e. Itia
sufficient to know, that it was submitted to the
people of the different States, and that it received
their solemn sanction, through their Elepresenta-
<f ives, in Conventions assembled; and that it is ndw

10

binding on us and on the whole country. One
of the objects of the union, as the preamble to the
Constitution sets forth, was " to insure domestic
trav.q.dllity.''^ But no sooner was the Government
organized, than an attempt was made by the North
to disturb the domestic tranquillity of' the South.
At the first Congress, held under the Constitution,
a petition, signed by citizens of the North, asking
for ti;c abolition of slavery, was presented. Thus
we find, that as early as 1790 the North commenced
its attacks upon the institutions of the South; and
they have persevered in these assaults, regai-dless
of al! constitutional stipulations, with unrelenting
and uncompromising hostility, from that day to the
present. 1 will not take up the time of the House
by recapitulating in detail these different acts of
hostility, but will confine my remarks to a few of
the most prominent. The great body of the peo-
ple of the South was Democratic, and this was a
sin, which was not to be forgiven by the New
England Federalists. The hostility of the Federal
jDarty of New England to the South, from the day
that the Democracy of the country triumphed over
John Adams and northern Federalism, by the elec-
tion of Thomas Jefferson, is as notorious, sir, as was
their opposition to the war of 1812, and the opposi-
tion cl* their descendants to the just and righteous
war with Mexico. And what did that party then
do, during the war of 1812? Why, when that trea-
sonable assemblage of northern Federalists, known
as the Hartford Convention, met to devise plans
of giving aid and comfort to our foreign foe, and
to break down the Democratic administration of
Madison, one of their first acts was to agitate the
slavery question. This question was at that day,
as it is nov/, the most formidable weapon, which
the Federalists could use to destroy the great na-
tional Democratic party; and accordingly one of
the alleged grievances of that convention was this
southern institution, and the right of representa-
tion founded upon it. Yes, sir, at that time, when
the people of the South stood shoulder to shoulder
with the Democrats of the North, fighting the
battle.? of our country in the war of 1812, the
Fedtralists of New England were banding to-
gether to destroy the Constitution, and the rights
guaranteed by it to the southern Stales. Then it
was, that in the midst of a perilous war with
Great Britain — a war which required the union of
the whole country to brins: it to a glorious termi-
nation— that the eastern Federalists raised the cry
against the slavery institutions of the South. Did
the Demociats of the North, or any part of them,
then join in this cry? No, sir; they understood
too well the obligations which the Constitution had
imposed upon them, and the duty which they
owed their country. They knew too well that
the agitation of the slavery question was a plot to
break down tlie national Democracy by separating
the northern Democrat from his southern brother.
They stood then, as I hope they always will stand,
by their principles and by the Constitution. And
what course did Democratic Pennsylvania take
with these anti slavery resolutions of the Hartford
Convention, which the Governors of Coiuiecticut
and Massachusetts transmitted for her considera-
tion? Did she then cry out free soil and southern
aggression, or join the eastern Federalists in their
crusade against slavery? Far from it. That firm
Democrat and pure patriot, Simon Snyder, was at
that lime the Governpr of the State; and it was

under his administration that a Democratic Legis-
lature of Pennsylvania, without the dissenting
voice of a single Democrat, affixed the seal of con-
demnation to the anti-slavery agitation of that
period. This is the first chapter of northern ag-
gression. But let us come down to a later period.
Missouri, which was formed out of the terri-
tory, ceded by France in 1803, was slave territory
when she asked admission as a State. Indef d, all
the territory, ceded by France, was slave territory
at the time of the cession. So far, therefore, as
regarded the question of slavery, the North had
no plausible ground to object to her admission. It
was the institution of her people, when she was
formed into a territory in 1812, and continued to
be her institution, down to the time of her admis-
sion, in 1820. But Missouri would add one more
to the Democratic Slates ifadmitted,and strengthen
still further the great national Democratic party.
The Democrats v/ere still in power; but the Feder-
alists of the North had determined that a northern
man should succeed Mr. Monroe when his term
of office expired. Again they raised the slavery
cry, and again their eiforts were directed to estrange
the North from the South. The same object, which
the Hartford conventionists had in view, actuated
the Federal leaders of the North in their agitation
of the Missouri question. That object was the
destruction of the national Democratic party, by
the formation of a northern party, founded on sec-
tional issues Many honest Democrats then, as
now, influenced by their hostility to slavery, suf-
fered themselves to be lured from the principles of
their party by the insidious and hypocritical cry
of free soil— a cry first raised in New England,
and echoed back by the whole Federal party north
of Mason and Dixon's line. Sir, the Missouri
agitation was a fearful crisis in the history of this
country. The Republic was shaken to its centre,
and reeled under the blows which northern Feder-
alists and northern fanatics were striking al its con ■
stitutional integrity. "This momentous'question,
'(said Thomas JelTeison,) like a fire-bell in the
' night, awakened and filled me with terror. I con-
' sidered it at once the knell of the Union. It is
' hushed, indeed, for the moment; but this is a
' rcpiieve only, not a final sentence." How graphic
is his representation of the danger to which the
country was then exposed, and how prophetic
were the fears, which he then expressed, that the
settlement of the Missouri question was only a
" reprieve, not a fin-il sentence !" I suppose north-
ern gentlemen can see no aggression on the rights
of the South in this question. In my opinion, it
was aggression of the boldest and most dangerous
character. Sir, 1 have said that the Missouri agi-
tation had its origin with the Federal party, and
that its object was the destruction of the Democratic
party. 1 have not made this charge heedlessly, or
without ample authority to sustain it. I make it
on the authority of Thomas Jefferson himself,
who wrote, that

" On llie oclipse of federalism witli us, although not its
extinction, its leaders got up l/ic Missouri (juestion, tinder the
false front of lessening the measure of shivery, but with tlie
real view of producins, <t :,'C0^npARai (Iaisi07io/;)ar//ej, uAuA
mii;ht insure them the next President. The people of the
North went blindfold into the snare, followed their leaders
for a while with a zeal truly moral and laudalile, until they
became sensible that they had been used merely as tools for
electioneering purposes; and that trick of hypocrisy then fell
as quickly as it had been got up."

Let the Democrats of the North now take heed

ii

of the counsels of Jefferson. Let them not fall
blindfold into the snare which the Federalists or
Whigs of the North have again set for them; but
relying on the integrity of their principles, and
standing ficm by the Constitution of their country,
let them be, what they have ever been, the conser-
vators of Republicanism, and the defenders of the
Union.

But, Mr. Chairman, let us come down to a still
later period. The North had been for a long time
insidiously undermining the Constitution. Powers
not granted by the States had been assumed by the
General Government; and other powers, which
were granted, had been .shamefully abused by the
legislation of the country. The illustrious patriot,
Andrew Jackson, was, however, elected President;
and down went, one after the other, every prop of
federalism. The Bank of the United States fell
to the ground, the internal-improvement system
was knocked in the head, and last, though not
least, the system of granting patents of monopoly
to the eastern manufacturers and federalists in the
form of high protective tariffs, was grievously
wounded and in the last throes of dissolution.
Nothing was left but the slavery question, the old
sectional issue; and from 3835 to this moment it
has been pressed by the North upon this House
and the country, with a vigor and determination
never before exhibited. Session after session innu-
merable petitions were sent up to this House,
signed by the abolition men, and women, and
children of the North, asking Congress to do that
which the Constitution gave them no power to do.
The "domestic tranquillity" of the South, which
was one of the objects of the Union, was assailed
in its most tender point, not merely by petitions to
Congress, but by incendiary publications, dissemi-
nated through the southern States, inciting the
slave to insurrection and to massacre. The history
of that period is fresh in the recollection of us all.
A more cruel, shameless, and merciless assault
upon the peace, safety, and domestic tranquillity of
the South could not have been made, than was
then made by the abolitionists of the North ; and
still northern gentlemen on the opposite side of
this Chamber allege, that there has been no aggres-
sion on the South. Why, sir, what constitutes ag-
gression .' Was it no aggression to assail the
domestic institutions of a sovereign State of this
Confederacy? Was it no aggression to incite a
servile insurrection, to sUr up the slave to murder
his owner, to fire his dwelling, to deluge the south-
ern country with the blood of our southern breth-
ren, and to desolate the hearth-stone of every
southern family in the Union? Sir, if this be not
aggression, then I do not knov/ what constitutes
aggression. Restrained by no principle, moral
or religious, by no feelings of humanity for their
fellow man, and by no mercy for their intended
victims, these abolitionists pressed forward to con-
summate their wicked designs, with the torch of
the incendiary in one hand and the black flag of
negro emancipation in the other. And, sir, in the
very front rank of that fanatic throng, stood
Hypocrisy

* * * * ^yith holy leer,

Soft smiling and demurely looking down,

But hid the dagger underneath the gown.

Mr. Chairman, was all this no aggression ? Sir,
if the Democratic party had not taken a bold, but
perhaps doubtful, constitutional ground, it would

have been something more than aggression — it
would have been cold-blooded massacre. The
South would have been lighted up with the con-
flagration of her cities and towns, and the air
wm,ild have resounded with the dying shrieks of
her helpless women and children; blood v;ou]d
have tlowed in torrents, and the war of extermina-
tion would have been carried on, until half of the
States of this Confederacy had been desolated, if
not entirely depopulated. But the Democratic
party saved the country from so direful a calam-
ity. The peril to the South was imminent, and
required prompt and decided action. A bill was
passed empowering postmasters in the southern
States to open the mail-bags, and take out the
incendiary publications, which the Abolitionists
were secretly circulating throughout the southern
country. It was only by these means that a ser-
vile insurrection was prevented, and the domestic
tranquillity of the South in some measure se-
cured. But although this bill put a stop to the
circulation in the South of incendiary publica-
tions by the Abolitionists, it did not restrain the
North from pressing on Congress petitions for the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia
and the territories. Unabashed by the rebuke,
which Congress had just given them, and utterly
regardless of the welfare of their country, this
northern party redoubled their exertions, backed
by the great body of the Whigs in all the northern
States. Again the country was convulsed by the
agitation of the slavery question, and again the
Democratic party came to the rescue. It was in
1838, in consequence of this northern agitation,
that the celebrated resolutions of Mr. Atherton
were introduced. These resolutions were sup-
ported by the great body of the Democratic party
of the North, but opposed, I believe, unanimously
by the Whig and Abolition parties of the same
section. They were supported by all the Demo-
cratic Representatives from Ptnnsylvaiiia, and by
both the Democratic Senators from that State.
I beg, sir, to call the attention of the committee
to those resolutions, as containing the true Demo-
cratic doctriiie on the subject of slavery. They
are as follow:

1. Rcsohed, Tliat this Government is a Goveoiiiient ol
limited powers, and that by the Coniititution of the United
States Congress has no jurisdiction whatever over tlie sub-
ject of slavery in the several States of this Confederacy.

2. Resolved, That petitions for the abolition of slavery
in the District of Columbia, and Me territories of the United
Slates, and against the removal of slaves from one State to
another, are a part of a plan of operations set on foot to
affect the institution of slavery in the several Statj^s, and
thus indirectly destroy that institution within their limits.

3. Resolved, That Conaress has no right to do tKat indi-
rectly which it cannot do directly; and that the agitation of
the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, or the
territories, as a means and with a view of disturbing or
overthrowing that institution in the several States, is against
the true spirit and meaning of the Constitution, an infringe-
ment of the rights of the States affected, and a breach'of
the public faitli upon wliich they entered into the Confeder-
ation.

4. Resolved, That the Constitution rests on the broad
principles of eiiuality among the memUers of this Confeder-
acy, and that Congress, in the exercise of its acknowledged
powers, has no right to discriminate between the institutions
of one of the States and another, with a view of abolishing
the one and promoting the other.

This, sir, was the national platform, then laid
down by the Democratic party in Congress; and
it is the only platform on which the union of these
States can securely rest, or on which the Demo-

12

cratic party can stand. These resolutions repu-
diate the VVilmot proviso in almost direct terms.
The 4th resolution declares, that the Constitution
" reslB on the broad principles of equality among the
members of this Confederacy," and that Congress
has no right to discriminate between the institutions
of the different States. Here is the doctrine of
non-intervention laid down by tlia Democratic
party more than twelve years ago. It was sound
doctrine tlien, and it is equally sound doctrine now;
and I hope that every Democrat here, and every
.Democratic constituency throughout the land, will
reassert the princijiles contained in the resolution;
which I have just read. But, sir, we have even
etiU higher authority for this doctrine of non-inter-
fereiice. The National Democratic Conventions,
composed of delegates from every section of the
Union, in 1840, '44, and '48, solemnly resolved,
that Congress has no power under the Constitu-
tion to interfere with this domestic institution of
the States, and that all efforts made to induce Con-
gress to interfere with questions of slavery, " or
to take incipient steps in relation Hurt to,'' are calcu

iateJ io onduii-jtt iho sstciuili! , add

:-y of

the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by
any friend to our political institutions. Such has
been the unbroken«cour.se of the pemocrdtic party
for a long series of years, in regard to this ques-
tion of slavery. Now is the time to hold fast to
these principles, because now is the time that their
maintenance can alone restore peace and quiet to
our distracted country.

But, sir, before I conclude, I must refer to one
other act of aggression by the North upon the
South : I mean the refusal to deliver fugitive
slaves. This, Mr. Chairman, has been an aggres-
sion, made in open violation of the plainest consti-
tutional obligations, that could be entered into by
any people — and made too without the semblance
of an excuse or justification. Sir, it is absurd to
call any of the stipulations of the Constitution,
compromises; but by whatever term they may be
designated, they are binding covenants, which the
States are bound to execute in good faith, and in
letter and in spirit. How have the fre.'; States
fulfilled their covenant to deliver the fugitive slave
to the owner? "Why sir, that clause of the Con-
stitution has become a dead letter. Bands of
abolitionists are organized in the North i.ot only
to aid in the escape of the sUives, but to steal them
from their owners. I have the authority of an
abolitionist of my own district for the truth of this
statement. The refusal to execute this cosisiitu-
tional duty has not been confined to "individual
citizens of the North; but wc have had the Legis-
latures of nearly ail the northern States endeavor-
ing by stringent provi-^ions to prevent the delivery
of the slave to his owner. I am glad, liowever,
to say, that the Democrats of my own State have
just succeeded in passing through the House of
Representatives, v.ith the aid of but two Whig
votes, a bill repealing the obtioxious and unconsti-
tutional law of 1847, and 1 trust that the Demo-

crats in other northern States will follow our
example. The people of my own county, I am
certain, wilt sustain me in the adoption of any
law, which will relieve them of your fugitive
slaves. We have free negroes enough to support,
without having your slaves brought among us to
interfere with the labor of the white man, to fill
our jails and alms-houses, and to increase the taxes
of the industrious portion of the community. But,
sir, v/hile such is the feeling of my constituent?,
they will require me to take good care, that in any
bill, which Congress may adopt for the return of the
slave, the rights uf the colored man are sufficienlly
protected against injury and oppression.

Such has been the course of the North against
the South — not merely one act of aggression, but
a series of acts beginning at the very birth of the
Government, and running down to the present
time. What more could have been done by the
North to disturb " the domestic tranquillity" of
the South, I am at a loss to know. It has been
aggression not merely on the property and the
domestic institutions of her people^ but on the
constiiuiioiiui iiiiegrii.,, uf the Uiiio.? '.iself. By
expressing these views in the face of the excite-
ment, which pervades every northern constituency,
I am aware of the personal sacrifice that I may
make; but 1 have felt that it was time, even for
an individual so humble as myself, to make £omc
offering on the altar of his country. Let others go
and do likewise, and peace, and love, and happi-
ness will reign throughout the breadth and the
length of our common country. I place my whole
reliance, in this emergency, in the Democratic
party of the North. When has our country ever
called upon that party to come to her rescue, that
it ha5 not been by her sidcj guarding and protect-
ing her from the foreign and the domestic foe?
Sir, that party has always recognized the inviola-
bility of the Con.stitulion and the sovereigntjr of
the States. With the Constitution for its guide,
and the glory and honor of our beloved country
forits only objects, it has always been found stand-
ing by the Union, whether in its hour of peril or
of safety. Sir, in this hour of peril, the most im-
minent that has ever occured, let that party be
rtgain found by the side of the country, in defence
of the Constitution and the integrity of the Union.
Let us stand, as our fathers stood, by the consti-
tutional Union, which came from their hands — by
that Union, which knows no North, no South, no
East, and no West, l)ut which guaranties to every
section equal rights tmd equal privileges — by that
Union, formed, as it v,-as, in mutual love, which
gave to the North no power to opi^raas the South,
and to tiic South no power lo inflict wronga upon
the North — by that Union, which has mnde us a
great, prosperous, and free people, and which, if
it continue, will liberate the world from bondagf;,
and shed the light of liberty, religion, and civiliza-
tion, into the darkest corners of the er.rth. In a
word, sir, let there be a union of the Democracy
for the sake of the Union.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

illi llliilli Hill III

0 017 137 809 6 ^^